This notion of explicit permission is something that seems to mostly apply to non-Tibetan practitioners.
If one was living in a valley in the Himalaya's, had received empowerment, instructions, and applied the practices diligently, there would be nobody questioning whether or not said individual could "teach" or transmit the practices they have a lineage connection to.

I find it extremely unlikely that the Mahasiddhas had some kind of certificate or explicit permission to benefit beings through offering them dharma. The notion is a bit silly.

Actually, they had to renew their teaching license every five years with the BRUB (Board of Really Uptight Buddhists).

Aw crud!
I forgot about the BRUB!

Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.

The texts say that it is not possible to help sentient beings without the clear vision that comes with the Path of Seeing i.e. the First Bhumi.

Therefore the Path of Seeing would be one’s permission to start teaching; and there would be no mistaking the signs....

Not to say that ‘ordinary’ practitioners can’t give lung transmissions to other practitioners who have already received transmission, that is if the former have done the requisite retreat(s). But I’m talking about becoming an actual Teacher.

The only exception to this would be if your Teacher gives you permission to start teaching.

This is my understanding anyway.

“...we should try to acquire clairvoyance. Without it, we are like a baby bird whose wings are undeveloped and has not yet grown feathers and remains stuck in its nest, unable to fly. Without clairvoyance, we cannot work for other sentient beings.” — Khunu Lama
“Just as a bird can not fly without both wings,
The welfare of others cannot be accomplished without the higher faculties of perception,
So diligently strive for your own wellbeing, whilst mentally considering the welfare of others.” — Longchenpa

...There were many large monastic institutions in India at the time of the Mahasiddhas...

what are those? i am only avare of 5: Nalanda, Vikramashila, Somapura, Odantapura and Jagaddala. that's from wikipedia. to my eyes i wouldn't call that "monastic establishment" in comparison to how it had developed in tibetan vajrayana, where the majority of accomplished masters have gone through rigorous monastic training first, perhaps excluding Shangpa to a certain degree. also, i was thinking they didn't teach tantric practices there, but that's just my uneducated assumptions based on what i've read about mahasiddhas. seems like all of them got their mahamudra introduction from yet another mahasiddhas and not from university teachers. i may of course be mistaken so any inputs are welcome.

...There were many large monastic institutions in India at the time of the Mahasiddhas...

what are those? i am only avare of 5: Nalanda, Vikramashila, Somapura, Odantapura and Jagaddala. that's from wikipedia.

That counts as many to me, and they were definitely "institutions".

Nalanda was a center for international intellectual exchange, and would have had a large residential community of practitioners. If Wikipiedia, as a publicly curated information website lists that many it would seem that there were even more.

Some of the namthars of Mahasiddhas, Virupa for example include references to tantric practice etc. while in a monastic setting.

Kye ma!
The river of continuity is marked by impermanence.
Ceaseless flowing of appearance.
Beautiful and repulsive.
The dance of life and death is a display of the vast expanse.
With gratitude the watcher and the watched pass through the barrier of duality.

And a few ones of them - according to Buddhist sources - were actually non-Buddhists.

AFAIK the non-Buddhist ones are not described as having actually attained Mahasiddhi.

Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.

And a few ones of them - according to Buddhist sources - were actually non-Buddhists.

AFAIK the non-Buddhist ones are not described as having actually attained Mahasiddhi.

Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.

I remember seeing quotations in this forum against this claim. At least according to some texts, all of them were Buddhist and also mahasiddhas. Some evidence should be given to support the claim that some of them were not Buddhist.

AFAIK the non-Buddhist ones are not described as having actually attained Mahasiddhi.

Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.

I remember seeing quotations in this forum against this claim. At least according to some texts, all of them were Buddhist and also mahasiddhas. Some evidence should be given to support the claim that some of them were not Buddhist.

Well, Minapa's guru was Shiva ...

There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.

I remember seeing quotations in this forum against this claim. At least according to some texts, all of them were Buddhist and also mahasiddhas. Some evidence should be given to support the claim that some of them were not Buddhist.

Well, Minapa's guru was Shiva ...

Doesn't really change anything as long as what he taught him was dharma and not something else.

Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.

I remember seeing quotations in this forum against this claim. At least according to some texts, all of them were Buddhist and also mahasiddhas. Some evidence should be given to support the claim that some of them were not Buddhist.

Well, Minapa's guru was Shiva ...

And I have it on very good authority Shiva is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara. As with anything in Indian religions, it gets pretty complicated when trying to draw strict demarcations.

Isn't this fascinating: Some Buddhist authors - we don't know much about them - writing about some mahasiddhas. Admitting that some of them actually were not Budhists. But then also stating that they did not attain mahasiddhi.

Think about it for a moment. It implies - obviously - that these stories must have been edited more than once by different authors. And that the later authors - obviously - were somehow indecisive. Should they simply delete them from the stories? Should they claim that they actually were Buddhists, although they clearly were not? Nope, they decided to go for another option. They claimed that, yes, they were mahasiddhas, but that they had not achieved ultimate mahasiddhi.

The reason why a Shaivite can't attain Buddhahood through that path is answered in the sutras.
The better questions would be how these figures got grouped together, and why it was accepted by Buddhists. My personal suspicion is that they were included to convert tirthikas. I mean, imagine an interaction between Virupa and one of the non-Buddhist Mahasiddhas.

I don't think anyone could just proclaim to be a paṇḍita though right? I read that was reserved for the Indians, and Tibetans were the lotsawas.

Pandita is a title for someone who has learned the five sciences, it's not an exclusively Indian title, Sakya Pandita was Tibetan. A Lotsawa is a translator, not the same as a Pandita.

Lotsa(wa) as a title is particularly used to refer to the realized Tibetans who went thru the vast undertaking of translating the Sutras and Tantras from Sanskrit into their native language. It even became part of their most commonly used names at times. Think Drokmi Lotsawa, Khye'u Chung Lotsawa, Marpa Lotsawa, etc.

Often this was done under the guidance of Indian panditas due to their extensive knowledge of Sanskrit, which is why you'll see the two terms used in conjunction. As Varis points out, pandita is not the Sanskrit for lotsawa, nor was it restricted to ethnic Indians.

Though there is some uncertainty about its origins, lotsawa is actually said to derive from Sanskrit lochava, itself a corruption of lokacakṣus, which literally means "eye(s) of the world." This can be used to refer to the Sun, so perhaps "one who illuminates the teachings" was the original intent there. I, however, always thought of it being somewhat like "citizen of the world"... a beautiful, poetic way of referring to those who are well-traveled, and broad-minded as a result.

At one point I thought that lotsawa was the general term for translator, even modern ones who are not themselves masters. Very few out there use it as a title however, probably due to the historical connotation. There are exceptions to this, of course, such as the translator for Khentrul Lodrö T'hayé Rinpoche. I've heard of others using the title being met with some derision and suspicion (though they were already noted for having odd/disturbing/harmful behavior).

Terms used nowadays are "kegyur (khen)" སྐད་སྒྱུར་(མཁན་) and "yikgyur(wa)" ཡིག་སྒྱུར་(བ་) or "yikgyur jepo/chepo" ཡིག་སྒྱུར་བྱེད་པོ་. As i was taught, སྐད་ ("ke") refers to spoken words, whereas ཡིག་ ("yik") is written words. This would make a kegyur an oral translator (interpreter) and a yikgyur a translator of texts.

"The Sutras, Tantras, and Philosophical Scriptures are great in number. However life is short, and intelligence is limited, so it's hard to cover them completely. You may know a lot, but if you don't put it into practice, it's like dying of thirst on the shore of a great lake. Likewise, a common corpse is found in the bed of a great scholar." ~ Karma Chagme

I don't think anyone could just proclaim to be a paṇḍita though right? I read that was reserved for the Indians, and Tibetans were the lotsawas.

Pandita is a title for someone who has learned the five sciences, it's not an exclusively Indian title, Sakya Pandita was Tibetan. A Lotsawa is a translator, not the same as a Pandita.

Lotsa(wa) as a title is particularly used to refer to the realized Tibetans who went thru the vast undertaking of translating the Sutras and Tantras from Sanskrit into their native language. It even became part of their most commonly used names at times. Think Drokmi Lotsawa, Khye'u Chung Lotsawa, Marpa Lotsawa, etc.

Often this was done under the guidance of Indian panditas due to their extensive knowledge of Sanskrit, which is why you'll see the two terms used in conjunction. As Varis points out, pandita is not the Sanskrit for lotsawa, nor was it restricted to ethnic Indians.

Right. I was saying (and failing horribly ) how mostly we hear of the Indians as the panditas, and the Tibetans were the lotsawas.